The end of DEI (at least in America)

[unchanged_lineup]

That’s interesting to hear. A middle aged white guy like me is the wrong person to decide whether they’re worthwhile or not, that’s for sure.

Check out these folks. I follow them because I think their EDI content is great.

https://www.gormmedia.com/

I've attended some of their free webinars. They're expert-led by Irish based academics etc working in specific areas of EDI research.
Extremely interesting and insightful

We'll hopefully have them in to my work for a seminar at some stage.

 

[CoopersDream]

Yeah, I'm not sure this is a bad thing necessarily. There should be equal oppurtunity, but these kind of things tries to encourage equality of outcome. To me that's not something to strive for.

These questions are very important, but anything that encourages inequality is not a good thing when masked as initiatives ofr equality.

 

[11101]

Is it just for government departments or extended out to all companies? I don't think it will affect any company who genuinely cares about diversity, they're free to retain their current practices. The ones who are forced to hire to meet quotas will benefit.

Thankfully theres nothing like it in the UK but ive had to adhere to it before and its a fecking pain.

 

[Superden]

I work in academia. I'm in Europe now, but have worked at 3 major US universities, including an Ivy league uni, as a researcher/professor. Because of DEI type policies, you have to sign declarations about your moral commitment to diversity (which usually means discriminatory hiring practices favoring minorities and LGBTQ) to get a job or a grant. In hiring commitees people often refuse to even consider white male applicants despite qualifcations, because the department needs more diversity. I've also studied the literature on mandatory bias training (which had been common place in many american universities), and basically there is zero evidence that it does anything positive. If anything, it makes people less open to ideas about diversity and inclusion.

Within the universities, If you openly voice dissent to any of this, you're tagged as a Trump supporter and racist. I didn't vote for Trump, but personally am 100% in favor of dismantling these DEI programs. They are waste of taxpayer money and only serve to exaggerate unfairness. People should be judged on their merits, not their skin color, gender or sexual preference. And you shouldn't suffer negative professional consequences if you believe that.

so is that what was happening before DEI came along ?
what happens if you refuse to believe or even acknowledge that systemic / institutional racism is a thing? should that viewpoint be celebrated then?

 

[VorZakone]

if you read the story properly, it wasnt DEI initatives that was the problem, its how it was implemented. In an organisation that even by 2020, black applicants were far more likely to fail their recruitment process than white.

So what is the proper implementation? Is hitting diversity targets not a goal of DEI?

 

[17Larsson]

Yeah, I'm not sure this is a bad thing necessarily. There should be equal oppurtunity, but these kind of things tries to encourage equality of outcome. To me that's not something to strive for.

These questions are very important, but anything that encourages inequality is not a good thing when masked as initiatives ofr equality.

Yep, agree with you

 

[VorZakone]

Yep that's why I said the qualification I said.

The BBC article says internal inquiry with no other details.

"Useless male white pilots" the kind of detail you prefer?

White men seeking to join the Royal Air Force were described as "useless white male pilots" in leaked emails that expose the pressure placed on recruitment officers to improve diversity.

https://news.sky.com/story/raf-recr...male-pilots-to-hit-diversity-targets-12893684

 

[UpWithRivers]

The problem is that it's gone too far. I was reading of an organisation that has a list of all the groups it supports. It's a long list. When you add it all up then it's 75 percent of the population. THE BBC has BAME apprenticeship. I.e. everyone but white. There are loads of examples of this. At this point we are just being discrimitory towards the white population.

I don't know why we always have to have extremes. Either we are in the racist right wing side or in the far woke side. We need a middle ground. Stop being discrimitory against everyone and give everyone the same opportunities. How hard is that? I guess impossible.

 

[Superden]

The problem is that it's gone too far. I was reading of an organisation that has a list of all the groups it supports. It's a long list. When you add it all up then it's 75 percent of the population. THE BBC has BAME apprenticeship. I.e. everyone but white. There are loads of examples of this. At this point we are just being discrimitory towards the white population.

I don't know why we always have to have extremes. Either we are in the racist right wing side or in the far woke side. We need a middle ground. Stop being discrimitory against everyone and give everyone the same opportunities. How hard is that? I guess impossible.

when most of the discrimination is against people who are not white or men, then surely that should be acknowledged and countered,

the whole anti-woke / anti-DEI argument about their needing to be a meritocracy, fails rather spectacularly in acknowledging that there is/was issues. and the same voices were not calling for a meritocracy pre DEI.
The BBC of before diversity was a thing, being a classic example. But people are happy to use them and the RAF etc as examples of recent 'anti-white bias', but completely ignore a century plus of discrimination in favour of whites. and more often than not, its because they want to go back to that, not repeal DEI and replace with some other method of ensuing fairness.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Trumps repeal of federal protections for discriminations against women, religion and race that had been in place for half a century was a terrible move.

However, repealing DEI quotas for federal government hires and federal government contractors has been long time coming.

I work right now for an American based consultancy that has federal contracts. We want to reach a 40% overall Female -<>- Male staff ratio, and reach 30% amongst the technical staff. So whilst functions like HR, Finance, Recruitment, Business development etc is relatively easy to hire women, technical staff is not.

The requirements right now are:

- Must have been a former/current NATO country commissioned officer.
- Minimum Bachelors Degree in a technical field.
- Must have been in a strategic role, Air Planner, Intelligence, Logistics etc
- Must have served at least two tours abroad in either EMEA or APAC.
- Must be eligible to work either in the UK, Germany or the USA.
- Unofficially, must be a woman.

This narrows the candidate pool down to about, well, sub 1000 people around the world and perhaps unsurprisingly, we've managed to hire 1 person in 8 months.

Sometimes trying to fetch diversity in talent pools which simply do not have diversity is impossible, all to meet some federal standards too was very hard.

 

[talking robot]

so is that what was happening before DEI came along ?
what happens if you refuse to believe or even acknowledge that systemic / institutional racism is a thing? should that viewpoint be celebrated then?

>>so is that what was happening before DEI came along ?

it depends on which moments in history we are talking about. if recent history (e.g. 1990's - 2005 ish), I'd probably say yes for academia, possibly less so for other sectors of the economy.

>>what happens if you refuse to believe or even acknowledge that systemic / institutional racism is a thing? should that viewpoint be celebrated then?

no it shouldn't necessarily be celebrated, but you should be able to argue that without losing your job. i don't personally think that institutional racism in America is nearly as strong as the left makes out. for example there are no laws or explicit policies that discriminate against minorities (such as jim crow laws in the past). in fact the only institutional racism i know of, where there is explicit discrimination against people on the basis of their race, gender or sexual preference in academia (or actually in any sector of the economy) are affirmative action/DEI policies. on the other hand, making that point publicly prior to trump could cause me to lose all sorts of professional opportunities. i don't think that's right.

 

[Superden]

>>so is that what was happening before DEI came along ?

it depends on which moments in history we are talking about. if recent history (e.g. 1990's - 2005 ish), I'd probably say yes for academia, possibly less so for other sectors of the economy.

>>what happens if you refuse to believe or even acknowledge that systemic / institutional racism is a thing? should that viewpoint be celebrated then?

no it shouldn't necessarily be celebrated, but you should be able to argue that without losing your job. i don't personally think that institutional racism in America is nearly as strong as the left makes out. for example there are no laws or explicit policies that discriminate against minorities (such as jim crow laws in the past). in fact the only institutional racism i know of, where there is explicit discrimination against people on the basis of their race, gender or sexual preference in academia (or actually in any sector of the economy) are affirmative action/DEI policies. on the other hand, making that point publicly prior to trump could cause me to lose all sorts of professional opportunities. i don't think that's right.

this is in relation to UK universities, and from only 4 years ago: (Mar 21)

Prof David Richardson, chair of Universities UK’s advisory group on stamping out racial harassment on campuses and vice-chancellor of University of East Anglia, said there was evidence of systemic issues that disproportionally affect students from black and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds.

Speaking on BBC Three’s documentary Is Uni Racist?, he said: “There’s mixed experiences, but many aren’t good. There is a lot of evidence that points towards universities perpetuating systemic racism, being institutionally racist and I have acknowledged that on behalf of the sector.

“Institutional racism is when there are systemic issues that are impacting disproportionally on particular members of your community, which need to be dismantled.”

Now you could argue he's blinkered as hes talking from a DEI viewpoint. or that hes describing some uncomfortable truths for the anti-DEI voices.

 

[Blood Mage]

This is basically a soft enforcing of don't ask don't tell across America. Basically if you want to be employed don't tell employers that you're gay or trans because now they're allowed to tell you to feck off.

 

[HTG]

Trumps repeal of federal protections for discriminations against women, religion and race that had been in place for half a century was a terrible move.

However, repealing DEI quotas for federal government hires and federal government contractors has been long time coming.

I work right now for an American based consultancy that has federal contracts. We want to reach a 40% overall Female -<>- Male staff ratio, and reach 30% amongst the technical staff. So whilst functions like HR, Finance, Recruitment, Business development etc is relatively easy to hire women, technical staff is not.

The requirements right now are:

- Must have been a former/current NATO country commissioned officer.
- Minimum Bachelors Degree in a technical field.
- Must have been in a strategic role, Air Planner, Intelligence, Logistics etc
- Must have served at least two tours abroad in either EMEA or APAC.
- Must be eligible to work either in the UK, Germany or the USA.
- Unofficially, must be a woman.

This narrows the candidate pool down to about, well, sub 1000 people around the world and perhaps unsurprisingly, we've managed to hire 1 person in 8 months.

Sometimes trying to fetch diversity in talent pools which simply do not have diversity is impossible, all to meet some federal standards too was very hard.

This reminds me a bit of the discussion about a lack of diversity within movies nominated for academy awards. The idea that the academy must somehow nominate much more movies from diverse backgrounds sounds good at first, but completely misses the actual problem: that not enough movies with such backgrounds even get made, to have enough to choose from and nominate. The academy is the wrong institution to address in this case. The issue was always one of education, in that minorities receive worse education, financing, in that minorities have less money and less contacts to finance movies, and issues of systemic racism within the production companies. The academy sits right at the end of all this and through its nominations makes the lack of diversity visible. But they aren’t the ones able to change anything for the better.
So I do think that there’s truth in some criticism of these programs. They can be well meant but ultimately can end up with some grotesque consequences and are often merely cosmetic in nature.
Though of course there are good programs out there that can make a real difference.
And it’s beyond any reasonable doubt for me, that the motivation for abolishing these programs and principles, is racist and hateful.

 

[talking robot]

this is in relation to UK universities, and from only 4 years ago: (Mar 21)

Prof David Richardson, chair of Universities UK’s advisory group on stamping out racial harassment on campuses and vice-chancellor of University of East Anglia, said there was evidence of systemic issues that disproportionally affect students from black and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds.

Speaking on BBC Three’s documentary Is Uni Racist?, he said: “There’s mixed experiences, but many aren’t good. There is a lot of evidence that points towards universities perpetuating systemic racism, being institutionally racist and I have acknowledged that on behalf of the sector.

“Institutional racism is when there are systemic issues that are impacting disproportionally on particular members of your community, which need to be dismantled.”

Now you could argue he's blinkered as hes talking from a DEI viewpoint. or that hes describing some uncomfortable truths for the anti-DEI voices.

I don't know about the UK context, so it's harder for me to judge. I would however point out that racial harassment of minority students by other students would not be institutional racism, as it wouldn't be something that is carried out by under the protection of institutional policies or norms. In pretty much every university I've ever seen or been a part of this, any form of harassment is strictly forbidden and harshly punished (except harassment of conservatives, which is often tolerated even if forbidden by the letter of the policy law). My own view is that I think (again in America but also in France to a lesser extent) that universities, especially in the humanities, strongly promote the idea that minorities are victims of institutional isms, when the evidence for this is not always strong. Students are convinced of this, and experience "microagressions" far too easily. For example, a professor pointing out that homicides are more likely in African American communities or simply failing to use the appropriate pronoun can be reported as a "microagression," even if the vast majority of the normal (ie non academic) population would think that is nonsense. It's not surprising then that if you were to then run a survey on minority students or faculty indoctrinated in that culture, that many will purport feeling aggrieved. To properly assess, you have to also assess whether the perceived grievance is actually legitimate.

Here are some relevant readings if you are interested:
https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/self-censorship-by-faculty-isnt-just-for-conservatives-anymore/
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Victimhood-Culture-Microaggressions-Spaces/dp/3319703285
https://www.thecoddling.com/
https://hal.science/hal-04352297

 

[unchanged_lineup]

"Useless male white pilots" the kind of detail you prefer?


https://news.sky.com/story/raf-recr...male-pilots-to-hit-diversity-targets-12893684

Yes, that is interesting info.

The other article did say that there was no effect on the quality of candidate hired.

What if these lads were indeed useless white male pilots?
Maybe they were already benefiting from some positive discrimination that got them on these boards when they weren't actually good enough for them.

That email is unprofessional and extremely embarrassing in isolation, yes. No doubt about that. But I think you're still assuming that the BAME candidates were not fit for the roles, rather than maybe that the white male candidates weren't.

As I say again, the bottom line is that the department said there was no end effect on the quality of candidate hired.

 

[UpWithRivers]

when most of the discrimination is against people who are not white or men, then surely that should be acknowledged and countered,

the whole anti-woke / anti-DEI argument about their needing to be a meritocracy, fails rather spectacularly in acknowledging that there is/was issues. and the same voices were not calling for a meritocracy pre DEI.
The BBC of before diversity was a thing, being a classic example. But people are happy to use them and the RAF etc as examples of recent 'anti-white bias', but completely ignore a century plus of discrimination in favour of whites. and more often than not, its because they want to go back to that, not repeal DEI and replace with some other method of ensuing fairness.

Obviously there was discrimination and it needed to be delt with. But discriminating other groups is not the answer. It's like having men only clubs so you decide its discriminatory so you open women only clubs. Seems like a good idea. But then you pump millions into women only clubs to address the balance to the point there is only 25 percent of clubs that men can get in to and all you have done is reversed the discrimination. The goal at the beginning was correct and the discrimination against women should never be acceptable. But if you overcorrect then you just cause other issues.

 

[cafecillos]

I for one think it's awesome we can now start to go back to the meritocracy we had before all the woke nonsense.

 

[Superden]

I don't know about the UK context, so it's harder for me to judge. I would however point out that racial harassment of minority students by other students would not be institutional racism, as it wouldn't be something that is carried out by under the protection of institutional policies or norms. In pretty much every university I've ever seen or been a part of this, any form of harassment is strictly forbidden and harshly punished (except harassment of conservatives, which is often tolerated even if forbidden by the letter of the policy law). My own view is that I think (again in America but also in France to a lesser extent) that universities, especially in the humanities, strongly promote the idea that minorities are victims of institutional isms, when the evidence for this is not always strong. Students are convinced of this, and experience "microagressions" far too easily. For example, a professor pointing out that homicides are more likely in African American communities or simply failing to use the appropriate pronoun can be reported as a "microagression," even if the vast majority of the normal (ie non academic) population would think that is nonsense. It's not surprising then that if you were to then run a survey on minority students or faculty indoctrinated in that culture, that many will purport feeling aggrieved. To properly assess, you have to also assess whether the perceived grievance is actually legitimate.

Here are some relevant readings if you are interested:
https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/self-censorship-by-faculty-isnt-just-for-conservatives-anymore/
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Victimhood-Culture-Microaggressions-Spaces/dp/3319703285
https://www.thecoddling.com/
https://hal.science/hal-04352297

im familiar with the coddling folks, using CBT to push their slighltly sanitised views, with no regard for their privilege. Racism and discrimination, being bad ideas that a good TED talk will fix.

As for the 1st link . this is what they say:

>>>"In the current political context, academia is on edge. A majority liberal-leaning social institution is being targeted for overhaul by an incoming conservative government. Public trust in higher ed is at an all time low. And legislative efforts are threatening to shake up the status quo.

These new data signal that the dominant trend of conservative faculty being more likely to self-censor than liberal faculty may be changing, especially with new waves of legislation driven largely by conservatives. (We’ll be sure at HxA to continue to give the nonpartisan shake to these bills to suss out threats to open inquiry and academic freedom.)

We’ve already seen hints of this shift with the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict putting a spotlight on not-so-clean political lines on campus, with pro-Palestinian speech being targeted more than pro-Israel speech.

This much is clear: Tides are shifting. Political lines are blurring. And academic freedom is becoming the bi-partisan principle we all need to protect."<<<

with the recent clampdown on anti-zionism, its again another situation of those who are pro free speech, anti wokery clamping down on voices they dont agree with or that suit there political ends. Will scraping away DEI initiatives also apply to practices that make it easier for white jewish employees to practice their religon for example...

 

[UpWithRivers]

I for one think it's awesome we can now start to go back to the meritocracy we had before all the woke nonsense.

There was no meritocracy before and there wasn't any after. That's the point. We should get to that

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

This is basically a soft enforcing of don't ask don't tell across America. Basically if you want to be employed don't tell employers that you're gay or trans because now they're allowed to tell you to feck off.

Don't think so. That would be active discrimination.

 

[Cheimoon]

People should be judged on their merits, not their skin color, gender or sexual preference.

If that's all we need, then why are, for example, upper layers of management and so many academic fields dominated by white males? Is that (1) purely based on merit, (2) fair to all possible candidates, and (3) best for society?

 

[cafecillos]

There was no meritocracy before and there wasn't any after. That's the point. We should get to that

Whose point? Because the point of a lot of people in favour of doing away with DEI policies is going back to their full privilege. Also, the notion that this happening under Trump is a step towards real equality is just an utterly ludicrous piss-take.

 

[11101]

If that's all we need, then why are, for example, upper layers of management and so many academic fields dominated by white males? Is that (1) purely based on merit, (2) fair to all possible candidates, and (3) best for society?

It takes about 30 years to reach the upper levels of corporate management. Think who was entering the workforce in 1995 versus now.

Trying to force people into higher positions before they have the necessary experience is not the answer, they will filter through in time.

 

[Cheimoon]

It takes about 30 years to reach the upper levels of corporate management. Think who was entering the workforce in 1995 versus now.

Trying to force people into higher positions before they have the necessary experience is not the answer, they will filter through in time.

Women and non-whites had been entering the workforce for quite a while by 1995. This isn't 1970.

 

[Newtonius]

"Useless male white pilots" the kind of detail you prefer?


https://news.sky.com/story/raf-recr...male-pilots-to-hit-diversity-targets-12893684

Police force 'discriminated against white heterosexual male'

Complaint lodged after ITV editor sparks fury for saying ‘we don’t want white men’

Couple more. Im sure it happens everywhere critical race theory is all over institutions in the Anglosphere like an itchy rash - this is the result, actual systemic racism to fight supposed racism (what in reality is base human instincts like tribalism and majority privilege, like what do you expect the workforce to look like in a European country?). And then people suddenly cry out at the alt-right fire that is blazing through the ranks of young, especially working class people, who are told they are privileged while being the most disadvantaged and under educated group.

 

[HTG]

It takes about 30 years to reach the upper levels of corporate management. Think who was entering the workforce in 1995 versus now.

Trying to force people into higher positions before they have the necessary experience is not the answer, they will filter through in time.

That's a highly debatable statement at best.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

If that's all we need, then why are, for example, upper layers of management and so many academic fields dominated by white males? Is that (1) purely based on merit, (2) fair to all possible candidates, and (3) best for society?

Assuming you’re talking about countries where the majority of people who live in that country are white isn’t that an obvious explanation for senior management being dominated by white people?

If we’re going to be as fair as possible shouldn’t we shoot for a situation where your chance of becoming a senior manager is exactly the same, no matter what race you are? Even though in countries where most people are white it will create a situation where the majority of senior managers in that country are white.

That said, global corporations could be the target here. There’s no justification for them having the vast majority of senior roles filled by white men.

 

[RoadTrip]

From my point of view, as someone who falls into the “DEI” bracket, I’d say the ethos of those policies has been well intentioned to an extent, but execution has been poor. There’s two fundamental issues for me.

First is are the policies meaningful or just to satisfy corporate imagine.

Secondly, where do you draw the line? At what point do those policies go “too far.”

Focusing on the second point here, this is a very real challenge. Where I work, there’s definitely a sentiment amongst white males who genuinely see those policies as necessary, but also genuinely feel they’ve gone too far. And this creates a very real problem, because the effect is those individuals become inherently sceptical of people in the DEI bracket who make promotions. Especially when promotions are competitive. Firstly it means they are always second guessing if they were passed over because they were worse or because a DEI box needed ticking. And secondly, for the persons promoted, it creates an inherent imposter syndrome and self doubt as to why they were promoted.

This is a genuine issue. Heck, I’ve experienced the latter myself.

However, there’s much more to DEI than to fill numbers quotas on balance of people at grades. Where I work, there’s a whole lot of training programmes which are catered to people in the DEI bracket. Because, they understand that people in this bracket may be weaker in certain skill sets due to cultural backgrounds of other personal challenges that may be unique to them. I think those programmes and training will be sorely missed if they weren’t there because they were the types of things that gave people in the DEI community a fair fight in an equal battle for promotion.

I think that’s what’ll be missed. A good DEI programme isn’t focused on making certain quotas. It’s about upskilling DEI individuals in areas where they are inherently weaker so that they have an equal opportunity to earn those promotions on merit, and thus to create a broader pool of skilled people to choose from, to then further reap the benefits that having diversify brings to the table. You get to then benefit the unique strengths they bring too.

The only key thing quotas achieve is the creation of role models. That’s easy to overlook, but it cannot be stated how much of a challenge it is to see yourself at the next step in your career when you don’t see people like you there.

Another key thing - is about awareness. I’ll give you a simple example. People from certain cultures are much less likely to speak up when other senior people are present, because in their cultures they’re told to respect elders and authority. They see speaking up as talking over someone when they shouldn’t; an act of disrespect. Those seniors then may feel that they are not capable of taking the next step, because they don’t speak up as much or don’t contribute. Even if they had all the right thoughts, just didn’t raise them. DEI policies also target creating awareness of the many things like this - both for the individual who has more awareness of how their actions may be perceived, and then also the seniors who may recognise that behaviour and then create a platform for those individuals.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

From my point of view, as someone who falls into the “DEI” bracket, I’d say the ethos of those policies has been well intentioned to an extent, but execution has been poor. There’s two fundamental issues for me.

First is are the policies meaningful or just to satisfy corporate imagine.

Secondly, where do you draw the line? At what point do those policies go “too far.”

Focusing on the second point here, this is a very real challenge. Where I work, there’s definitely a sentiment amongst white males who genuinely see those policies as necessary, but also genuinely feel they’ve gone too far. And this creates a very real problem, because the effect is those individuals become inherently sceptical of people in the DEI bracket who make promotions. Especially when promotions are competitive. Firstly it means they are always second guessing if they were passed over because they were worse or because a DEI box needed ticking. And secondly, for the persons promoted, it creates an inherent imposter syndrome and self doubt as to why they were promoted.

This is a genuine issue. Heck, I’ve experienced the latter myself.

However, there’s much more to DEI than to fill numbers quotas on balance of people at grades. Where I work, there’s a whole lot of training programmes which are catered to people in the DEI bracket. Because, they understand that people in this bracket may be weaker in certain skill sets due to cultural backgrounds of other personal challenges that may be unique to them. I think those programmes and training will be sorely missed if they weren’t there because they were the types of things that gave people in the DEI community a fair fight in an equal battle for promotion.

I think that’s what’ll be missed. A good DEI programme isn’t focused on making certain quotas. It’s about upskilling DEI individuals in areas where they are inherently weaker, to create a broader pool of skilled people to choose from, to then further reap the benefits that having diversify brings to the table. You get to then benefit the unique strengths they bring too.

The only key thing quotas achieve is the creation of role models. That’s easy to overlook, but it cannot be stated how much of a challenge it is to see yourself at the next step in your career when you don’t see people like you there.

Another key thing - is about awareness. I’ll give you a simple example. People from certain cultures are much less likely to speak up when other senior people are present, because in their cultures they’re told to respect elders and authority. They see speaking up as talking over someone when they shouldn’t; an act of disrespect. Those seniors then may feel that they are not capable of taking the next step, because they don’t speak up as much or don’t contribute. Even if they had all the right thoughts, just didn’t raise them. DEI policies also target creating awareness of the many things like this - both for the individual who has more awareness of how their actions may be perceived, and then also the seniors who may recognise that behaviour and then create a platform for those individuals.

Good post.

 

[4bars]

Yeah but then that's something else. That's Affirmative Action.

But you can't outlaw diversity itself
It just exists.

I thought you meant diversity at work place. I see that you meant in general.

And yes, it exist but he is outlawing it by future deportations and officually declaring 2 genders. There will still be diversity, but less.

 

[talking robot]

If that's all we need, then why are, for example, upper layers of management and so many academic fields dominated by white males? Is that (1) purely based on merit, (2) fair to all possible candidates, and (3) best for society?

First that's actually not true. In many humanities departments, the biological/life science, psychology departments, and other social sciences there is near parity, parity or majority female academic staff. In the hard sciences, like physics or chemistry, those are more male dominated. In terms of ethnicity, it tends to be white dominated in the US followed by Asians.

Why is all this the case? First, I think the male/female differences are largely domain specific, and probably driven by motivational differences with women finding some fields inherently less attractive and some inherently more attractive (much like the vast majority of wikipedia content providers, uber drivers and football fans tend to be male, despite these being open opportunities to anyone who might want to participate).

So is at all merit based (question 1)? For male/female, basically yes. Discrencies occur due to motivational factors (which may result from genetics or society). There are also certain cultures that may be simply be more off putting to women, such as philosophy which is very argumentative and aggressive. I don't think the discrepancies are due to hiring biases against women though. For race, I also don't think the discrepancies are due to hiring biases. If anything, departments are hungry to hire more and more ethnic minorities (except asians who probably are truly discriminated against, if anything because they perform too well) due to political and reputational pressures amongst colleagues. The problem is the lack of qualified candidates to meet the demand. Where does that lack of "supply" come from? That's a complicated, societal question. For African Americans, it's almost certainly a product of the horrible history of slavery and disenfranchisement of black communities, which has led to poverty and worse educational outcomes cycled over generation (and then fewer undergraduates, fewer PhD's and even fewer PhD candidates). Add to that a motivational factor: Academic jobs suck from a financial perspective. If you come from an improvrished community or household (and thus you aren't expecting a big inheritance), not many would choose to do 5 years of a phd, 4 years of a postdoc, all on the off chance that they might get an underpaid academic job. People usually pursue academic careers for cultural capital, and they have the freedom to do that only when they have actual capital (which you won't get in academia).

For question (2), do I think it's fair for all candidates? No. I think the hiring processes for faculty positions, phd positions, and postdocs are weighted against white males and asians, and that is inherently unfair. I don't think that societal problems should be fixed at the moment that we go to choose candidates. Choosing less qualified candidates because they are women or ethnic minorities is inherently unfair and overlooks all sorts of other forms of unfairness (is it fair for example to give a job to a wealthy black women over a more qualified white male from a poor coal mining family in west virginia, just because of skin color?). It's a reason why you get many beneficiaries of affirmative action cases dropping out, failing to get tenure, etc.., which in turn only enhances negative stereotypes for the group that is meant to be helped.

Is DEI best for society (question 3)? No. The best thing for society is to hire the best candidates for the job in terms of teaching ability, scientific quality, and mentorship ability. Those considerations should attempt to be race and gender blind, even if the human mind is imperfect and that is not always possible.

 

[talking robot]

im familiar with the coddling folks, using CBT to push their slighltly sanitised views, with no regard for their privilege. Racism and discrimination, being bad ideas that a good TED talk will fix.

As for the 1st link . this is what they say:

>>>"In the current political context, academia is on edge. A majority liberal-leaning social institution is being targeted for overhaul by an incoming conservative government. Public trust in higher ed is at an all time low. And legislative efforts are threatening to shake up the status quo.

These new data signal that the dominant trend of conservative faculty being more likely to self-censor than liberal faculty may be changing, especially with new waves of legislation driven largely by conservatives. (We’ll be sure at HxA to continue to give the nonpartisan shake to these bills to suss out threats to open inquiry and academic freedom.)

We’ve already seen hints of this shift with the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict putting a spotlight on not-so-clean political lines on campus, with pro-Palestinian speech being targeted more than pro-Israel speech.

This much is clear: Tides are shifting. Political lines are blurring. And academic freedom is becoming the bi-partisan principle we all need to protect."<<<

with the recent clampdown on anti-zionism, its again another situation of those who are pro free speech, anti wokery clamping down on voices they dont agree with or that suit there political ends. Will scraping away DEI initiatives also apply to practices that make it easier for white jewish employees to practice their religon for example...

Fair enough about discimination against liberals in places like Florida. I totally agree, and oppose that as much as I oppose woke censorship and discrimination against conservatives in liberal univerities. I was speaking from personal experience, as after having worked or studied in 8 continental european or us universities (which are generally considered to be "prestigious"), I've never encountered one that leans conservative like in Florida.

I have no idea of scrapping DEI initiatives wil make it easier for white jewish employees to practice their religion. I'm not even sure how that's relevent here as the practice of one's religion is usually at home or in a place of worship. I do think that scrapping these initiatives would generally allow for more freedom of speech though.

 

[talking robot]

From my point of view, as someone who falls into the “DEI” bracket, I’d say the ethos of those policies has been well intentioned to an extent, but execution has been poor. There’s two fundamental issues for me.

First is are the policies meaningful or just to satisfy corporate imagine.

Secondly, where do you draw the line? At what point do those policies go “too far.”

Focusing on the second point here, this is a very real challenge. Where I work, there’s definitely a sentiment amongst white males who genuinely see those policies as necessary, but also genuinely feel they’ve gone too far. And this creates a very real problem, because the effect is those individuals become inherently sceptical of people in the DEI bracket who make promotions. Especially when promotions are competitive. Firstly it means they are always second guessing if they were passed over because they were worse or because a DEI box needed ticking. And secondly, for the persons promoted, it creates an inherent imposter syndrome and self doubt as to why they were promoted.

This is a genuine issue. Heck, I’ve experienced the latter myself.

However, there’s much more to DEI than to fill numbers quotas on balance of people at grades. Where I work, there’s a whole lot of training programmes which are catered to people in the DEI bracket. Because, they understand that people in this bracket may be weaker in certain skill sets due to cultural backgrounds of other personal challenges that may be unique to them. I think those programmes and training will be sorely missed if they weren’t there because they were the types of things that gave people in the DEI community a fair fight in an equal battle for promotion.

I think that’s what’ll be missed. A good DEI programme isn’t focused on making certain quotas. It’s about upskilling DEI individuals in areas where they are inherently weaker so that they have an equal opportunity to earn those promotions on merit, and thus to create a broader pool of skilled people to choose from, to then further reap the benefits that having diversify brings to the table. You get to then benefit the unique strengths they bring too.

The only key thing quotas achieve is the creation of role models. That’s easy to overlook, but it cannot be stated how much of a challenge it is to see yourself at the next step in your career when you don’t see people like you there.

Another key thing - is about awareness. I’ll give you a simple example. People from certain cultures are much less likely to speak up when other senior people are present, because in their cultures they’re told to respect elders and authority. They see speaking up as talking over someone when they shouldn’t; an act of disrespect. Those seniors then may feel that they are not capable of taking the next step, because they don’t speak up as much or don’t contribute. Even if they had all the right thoughts, just didn’t raise them. DEI policies also target creating awareness of the many things like this - both for the individual who has more awareness of how their actions may be perceived, and then also the seniors who may recognise that behaviour and then create a platform for those individuals.

that's a great post, and i agree with a lot of that. i would just wonder: why couldn't things like soft skill training, network enhancement, etc.. (which might be of the type that DEI programs aim to enhance) just be open to anyone who needs them, including for example poor white males? one of my biggest gripes with the DEI perspective is that it is very selective about the categories that it chooses to help, and the choices sometimes feel arbitrary.

 

[Florida Man]

Hasn’t he also removed the equal opportunities act which makes it legal to discriminate in hiring?

President can’t remove acts.

 

[11101]

Women and non-whites had been entering the workforce for quite a while by 1995. This isn't 1970.

Women made up 6% of C-level executives in 1995. In 2004 it was 18%. In 2024 just under 35%. Then when you overlay female labour participation there's a clear correlation with the makeup of senior management and who was entering the workforce 30 years earlier.

 

[Cheimoon]

First that's actually not true. In many humanities departments, the biological/life science, psychology departments, and other social sciences there is near parity, parity or majority female academic staff. In the hard sciences, like physics or chemistry, those are more male dominated. In terms of ethnicity, it tends to be white dominated in the US followed by Asians.

Why is all this the case? First, I think the male/female differences are largely domain specific, and probably driven by motivational differences with women finding some fields inherently less attractive and some inherently more attractive (much like the vast majority of wikipedia content providers, uber drivers and football fans tend to be male, despite these being open opportunities to anyone who might want to participate).

So is at all merit based (question 1)? For male/female, basically yes. Discrencies occur due to motivational factors (which may result from genetics or society). There are also certain cultures that may be simply be more off putting to women, such as philosophy which is very argumentative and aggressive. I don't think the discrepancies are due to hiring biases against women though. For race, I also don't think the discrepancies are due to hiring biases. If anything, departments are hungry to hire more and more ethnic minorities (except asians who probably are truly discriminated against, if anything because they perform too well) due to political and reputational pressures amongst colleagues. The problem is the lack of qualified candidates to meet the demand. Where does that lack of "supply" come from? That's a complicated, societal question. For African Americans, it's almost certainly a product of the horrible history of slavery and disenfranchisement of black communities, which has led to poverty and worse educational outcomes cycled over generation (and then fewer undergraduates, fewer PhD's and even fewer PhD candidates). Add to that a motivational factor: Academic jobs suck from a financial perspective. If you come from an improvrished community or household (and thus you aren't expecting a big inheritance), not many would choose to do 5 years of a phd, 4 years of a postdoc, all on the off chance that they might get an underpaid academic job. People usually pursue academic careers for cultural capital, and they have the freedom to do that only when they have actual capital (which you won't get in academia).

For question (2), do I think it's fair for all candidates? No. I think the hiring processes for faculty positions, phd positions, and postdocs are weighted against white males and asians, and that is inherently unfair. I don't think that societal problems should be fixed at the moment that we go to choose candidates. Choosing less qualified candidates because they are women or ethnic minorities is inherently unfair and overlooks all sorts of other forms of unfairness (is it fair for example to give a job to a wealthy black women over a more qualified white male from a poor coal mining family in west virginia, just because of skin color?). It's a reason why you get many beneficiaries of affirmative action cases dropping out, failing to get tenure, etc.., which in turn only enhances negative stereotypes for the group that is meant to be helped.

Is DEI best for society (question 3)? No. The best thing for society is to hire the best candidates for the job in terms of teaching ability, scientific quality, and mentorship ability. Those considerations should attempt to be race and gender blind, even if the human mind is imperfect and that is not always possible.

I'm really too tired to argue against this in great detail, but overall:

I didn't talk only about academia, I said management in general as well. But the arguments largely apply similarly anyway.

Interests aren't due to genetics, they are due to society. An important factor among everything that biases people's interests is seeing examples in roles that might suit you. When positions are filled with people from a limited socio-demographic range, everyone else doesn't see people like them and is biased against going that career route - continuing the limited variety, and so on along the cycle.

While academic jobs won't make you rich, they pay pretty alright. It's not like people choosing against academia all go into jobs that make them rich. Education is expensive though, and pay is crap until you land an actual job. That's where finance-based affirmative action for grants and awards makes sense, to actual tap society's potential.

The accuracy of hiring processes is far overrated. You make it out as if the process will lead to a reliable ranking of candidates by quality, but that's not true. At best, you can classify candidates in categories such as 'excellent', 'good', 'okay', 'insufficient' - and even there, the application qualities of applicants (which aren't important for fulfilling the role but key to getting it) will play a role, as well as the biases of the hiring committee. It's well-known that people get ranked differently if the sociodemographic characteristics are not known. So rather than saying 'due to EDI, we pick #5 from our list and forego the superior quality of #1-4', the better characterization is that, among a group of comparably excellent candidates, the EDI candidate is chosen.

Also, studies show that there are indeed advantages for society from having more variety in all kinds of domains. For example, the 'male gaze' has meant that women's health has been under-researched for the longest time (or sickle cell disease, to take a very specific example); or creates inventions that don't work as well for people types that are too different from the developers; that entire population groups have been underserved in various ways; and so on.

Further, studies also show that companies with more women in leadership roles (more compared to severe underrepresentation) do better, on various fronts. I can't right now find the study I read previously, but there are plenty of data-driven articles about this online. For example: https://hbr.org/2021/04/research-adding-women-to-the-c-suite-changes-how-companies-think and https://www.forbes.com/councils/for...-everyone-wins-with-more-women-in-leadership/.

 

[Cheimoon]

Women made up 6% of C-level executives in 1995. In 2004 it was 18%. In 2024 just under 35%. Then when you overlay female labour participation there's a clear correlation with the makeup of senior management and who was entering the workforce 30 years earlier.

With a lot of affirmative action going on. What happens when you take that away?

 

[talking robot]

I'm really too tired to argue against this in great detail, but overall:

I didn't talk only about academia, I said management in general as well. But the arguments largely apply similarly anyway.

Interests aren't due to genetics, they are due to society. An important factor among everything that biases people's interests is seeing examples in roles that might suit you. When positions are filled with people from a limited socio-demographic range, everyone else doesn't see people like them and is biased against going that career route - continuing the limited variety, and so on along the cycle.

While academic jobs won't make you rich, they pay pretty alright. It's not like people choosing against academia all go into jobs that make them rich. Education is expensive though, and pay is crap until you land an actual job. That's where finance-based affirmative action for grants and awards makes sense, to actual tap society's potential.

The accuracy of hiring processes is far overrated. You make it out as if the process will lead to a reliable ranking of candidates by quality, but that's not true. At best, you can classify candidates in categories such as 'excellent', 'good', 'okay', 'insufficient' - and even there, the application qualities of applicants (which aren't important for fulfilling the role but key to getting it) will play a role, as well as the biases of the hiring committee. It's well-known that people get ranked differently if the sociodemographic characteristics are not known. So rather than saying 'due to EDI, we pick #5 from our list and forego the superior quality of #1-4', the better characterization is that, among a group of comparably excellent candidates, the EDI candidate is chosen.

Also, studies show that there are indeed advantages for society from having more variety in all kinds of domains. For example, the 'male gaze' has meant that women's health has been under-researched for the longest time (or sickle cell disease, to take a very specific example); or creates inventions that don't work as well for people types that are too different from the developers; that entire population groups have been underserved in various ways; and so on.

Further, studies also show that companies with more women in leadership roles (more compared to severe underrepresentation) do better, on various fronts. I can't right now find the study I read previously, but there are plenty of data-driven articles about this online. For example: https://hbr.org/2021/04/research-adding-women-to-the-c-suite-changes-how-companies-think and https://www.forbes.com/councils/for...-everyone-wins-with-more-women-in-leadership/.

Let's just call it a day for the exchange. We don't agree on much, but I doubt we will. Thanks for your thoughts though, and I'm happy to see that another redcafe member has thought deeply about all this (even if our conclusions aren't the same). Time will tell what costs and benefits arise from the new policy changes in America (compared to the UK, Canada and Europe which won't be experiencing the same changes right away).

 

[talking robot]

With a lot of affirmative action going on. What happens when you take that away?

A bigger question for me: What's the stopping rule? At best, it's a necessary evil (i.e. introducing new injustices to counteract older ones). At what point does society say "Ok, affirmative action might have been a good idea for a period, but we've reached a point where it should now be stopped?" I look at the fact that so many people voted for Trump because they felt DEI/wokism has gone too far in the US, and can't help but wonder if we've just reached the stopping point. Maybe it was the right solution for a time and no longer is?